U.S. Interrogation and Criminal Homicide Law WP-MON-U2-USICHL

COURSE INSTRUCTOR: Professor Melanie Reid
• Email: melanie.reid@lmunet.edu

COURSE PLAN

No. Topic Planned amount in hours
1. History of Interrogation Law 1 hour
2. Interrogations: due process and voluntariness 2 hours
3. Miranda v. Arizona 2 hours
4. The Miranda Rule: What is custody and interrogation? 2 hours
5. Waiver and Invocation of the Right to Silence and Right to Counsel 2 hours
6 Violations and Exceptions to Miranda v. Arizona 2 hours
7. 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination 2 hours
8. Eyewitness identification procedures 2 hours

COURSE CONTENT

Monday – June 6th: read pages 483-485, 489-503
• Interrogations: due process and voluntariness
For confessions to be admissible, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that they be voluntary. Voluntariness is assessed by looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect’s age, education and metal and physical condition, along with the setting, duration, and manner of police interrogation. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991); Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959); Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).

Tuesday – June 7th: read pages 504-517, 527-543, 546-553
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination became the basis for ruling upon the admissibility of a confession. The Miranda warnings and a valid waiver are prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by the accused during custodial interrogation.
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977); J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).

Wednesday – June 8th: read pages 558-561, 575-582, 590-611
• Waiver and Invocation of the Right to Silence and Right to Counsel
North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979); Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250 (2010); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981); Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990); Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S.Ct. 1213 (2010).
• Violations and Exceptions to Miranda v. Arizona
The detainee may waive his rights under Miranda. To be valid the government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971); New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1995); Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004); United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004).

Thursday – June 9th: read pages 612-623, 744-762
• 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination
• Homicide Interrogations
Students will view interrogation videos and utilize what they have learned to determine if the particular interrogation was voluntary and constitutional under Miranda v. Arizona.

Friday – June 10th: read pages 828-835, 838-847, 849-858
• Eyewitness Identification Procedures
A defendant can attack an identification as denying due process when the identification is unnecessarily suggestive and there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972); United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).

Wednesday – June 15th at noon – email your response/court order to melanie.reid@lmunet.edu